Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is a robotic system really better than the three-dimensional laparoscopic system in terms of suturing performance?: comparison among operators with different levels of experience

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

High-quality three-dimensional (3D) vision systems are now available for laparoscopic surgery and may improve surgical performance relative to two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopy. It is unclear whether 3D laparoscopy is superior to 3D robotic systems. The effect of surgeon experience on surgical performance with different instruments also remains unclear. This study compared the ability of experienced and inexperienced surgeons to perform a suturing task with 2D laparoscopy, 3D laparoscopy, and a 3D robot.

Methods

The 20 recruited surgeons consisted of experts (≥100 laparoscopic cases, n = 9), surgeons with intermediate experience (20–99 cases, n = 7), and novices (<20 cases, n = 4). All performed a suturing task three times with each instrument. Task failure rates and completion times were measured.

Results

All novices failed to complete the task with 2D or 3D laparoscopy, but all completed the task with the robot. The intermediate group failed the task with 2D laparoscopy (23.8 % failure rate) more often than with 3D laparoscopy (4.8 %) or the robot (0 %; P = 0.04). Expert failure rates were low for all instruments. Intermediate group task completion times were similar to 2D laparoscopy (median 312 s; range 229–495 s), 3D laparoscopy (324 s; 170–443 s), and the robot (319 s; 213–433 s) (P = 0.237). The expert times differed significantly (P = 0.01); post hoc analyses showed that their total completion time with 3D laparoscopy (177 s; 126–217 s) was significantly shorter than with 2D laparoscopy (244 s; 155–270 s; P = 0.004). It also tended to be shorter than with the robot (233 s; 187–461 s; P = 0.027).

Conclusions

Novices benefited particularly from the robot. The intermediate group completed the task equally well and equally quickly with 3D laparoscopy and the robot. The experts completed the task equally well regardless of instrument, but their times were much faster with 3D laparoscopy. Thus, well-trained laparoscopic surgeons may not really benefit from 3D robot systems if 3D laparoscopy is available.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Heemskerk J, Zandbergen R, Maessen JG, Greve JW, Bouvy ND (2006) Advantages of advanced laparoscopic systems. Surg Endosc 20(5):730–733

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gallagher AG, Ritter EM, Lederman AB, McClusky DA 3rd, Smith CD (2005) Video-assisted surgery represents more than a loss of three-dimensional vision. Am J Surg 189(1):76–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wagner OJ, Hagen M, Kurmann A, Horgan S, Candinas D, Vorburger SA (2012) Three-dimensional vision enhances task performance independently of the surgical method. Surg Endosc 26(10):2961–2968

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M, Sbrana F, Cecconi S, Balestracci T, Caravaglios G (2003) Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 138(7):777–784

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Baek SJ, Lee DW, Park SS, Kim SH (2011) Current status of robot-assisted gastric surgery. World J Gastrointest Oncol 3(10):137–143

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. deSouza AL, Prasad LM, Park JJ, Marecik SJ, Blumetti J, Abcarian H (2010) Robotic assistance in right hemicolectomy: Is there a role? Dis Colon Rectum 53(7):1000–1006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Liu H, Lu D, Wang L, Shi G, Song H, Clarke J (2012) Robotic surgery for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD008978

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs—the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363(8):701–704

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cicione A, Autorino R, Breda A, De Sio M, Damiano R, Fusco F, Greco F, Carvalho-Dias E, Mota P, Nogueira C, Pinho P, Mirone V, Correia-Pinto J, Rassweiler J, Lima E (2013) Three-dimensional vs standard laparoscopy: comparative assessment using a validated program for laparoscopic urologic skills. Urology 82(6):1444–1450

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Smith R, Schwab K, Day A, Rockall T, Ballard K, Bailey M, Jourdan I (2014) Effect of passive polarizing three-dimensional displays on surgical performance for experienced laparoscopic surgeons. Br J Surg 101(11):1453–1459

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tanagho YS, Andriole GL, Paradis AG, Madison KM, Sandhu GS, Varela JE, Benway BM (2012) 2D versus 3D visualization: impact on laparoscopic proficiency using the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery skill set. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 22(9):865–870

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Honeck P, Wendt-Nordahl G, Rassweiler J, Knoll T (2012) Three-dimensional laparoscopic imaging improves surgical performance on standardized ex-vivo laparoscopic tasks. J Endourol 26(8):1085–1088

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chandra V, Nehra D, Parent R, Woo R, Reyes R, Hernandez-Boussard T, Dutta S (2010) A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices. Surgery 147(6):830–839

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hubens G, Coveliers H, Balliu L, Ruppert M, Vaneerdeweg W (2003) A performance study comparing manual and robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery using the da Vinci system. Surg Endosc 17(10):1595–1599

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Moorthy K, Munz Y, Dosis A, Hernandez J, Martin S, Bello F, Rockall T, Darzi A (2004) Dexterity enhancement with robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 18(5):790–795

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yamaguchi S, Yoshida D, Kenmotsu H, Yasunaga T, Konishi K, Ieiri S, Nakashima H, Tanoue K, Hashizume M (2011) Objective assessment of laparoscopic suturing skills using a motion-tracking system. Surg Endosc 25(3):771–775

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hofstad EF, Vapenstad C, Chmarra MK, Lango T, Kuhry E, Marvik R (2013) A study of psychomotor skills in minimally invasive surgery: what differentiates expert and nonexpert performance. Surg Endosc 27(3):854–863

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was fully funded by Educational Research Grant from Olympus, Korea.

Disclosures

Young Suk Park, Aung Myint Oo, Sang-Yong Son, Dong Joon Shin, Do Hyun Jung, Sang-Hoon Ahn, Do Joong Park, and Hyung-Ho Kim have no conflict of interest to declare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 166 Gumi-ro, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-shi, Kyeonggi-do, 463-707, South Korea

    Young Suk Park, Aung Myint Oo, Sang-Yong Son, Dong Joon Shin, Do Hyun Jung, Sang-Hoon Ahn, Do Joong Park & Hyung-Ho Kim

  2. Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea

    Do Joong Park & Hyung-Ho Kim

  3. Department of General Surgery, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Novena, Singapore

    Aung Myint Oo

Authors
  1. Young Suk Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aung Myint Oo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sang-Yong Son
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dong Joon Shin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Do Hyun Jung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sang-Hoon Ahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Do Joong Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hyung-Ho Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sang-Hoon Ahn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Park, Y.S., Oo, A.M., Son, SY. et al. Is a robotic system really better than the three-dimensional laparoscopic system in terms of suturing performance?: comparison among operators with different levels of experience. Surg Endosc 30, 1485–1490 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4357-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4357-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation